Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:20:21 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: "yvan" <niooi@cybercable.fr>, <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Islam (was: Religions (was Re: helping victims of terror)) Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20011023174746.0435fa80@localhost> In-Reply-To: <004b01c15bb9$9852b8c0$b227c6d4@C> References: <1003617187.3bd1fba3d31ff@webmail.neomedia.it> <1003617187.3bd1fba3d31ff@webmail.neomedia.it> <4.3.2.7.2.20011020213927.048a1780@localhost> <200110211547.f9LFlIB27704@dungeon.home> <4.3.2.7.2.20011021172532.04293960@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 05:55 AM 10/23/2001, yvan wrote: >> Actually, that land has changed hands so many times over >> the centuries that any claim to "rightful" ownership of >> it is arbitrary. But the Israelis are actually good >> stewards of it. In fact, the Arabs living within Israel's >> boundaries live better, and are treated better, than >> those in Gaza and other areas ceded to the Palestinian >> terrorists. > >Hello, > >This is the typical argument of a colonizer. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "colonization." Israel is most definitely not a colony, since colonies by definition are controlled from without and do not have have democratic governments. (The colonies that became the United States had to revolt to get one, as did India and many others.) Attempting to determine the "rightful" owner of a territory according to past rule is arbitrary and a hallmark of primitive thinking. Jerusalem, for example, has been within the territory of hundreds of regimes over the centuries, from ancient nomadic tribes to ancient Judea (which long pre-dated Islam, by the way) to the Romans. Why is one claim any more or less legitimate than any other? Are you going to attempt to declare an arbitrary date at which the game of "Musical Chairs" ends and the group that was in control at that date should have control? If so, what's to keep others from naming an equally arbitrary date at which someone else was in power? The only way out of this conundrum is democracy: the notion that legitimacy of government depends not upon the history of past control but by whether or not there is government by, of, and for the people. A democratic government is elected by, and represents, the people who live there, regardless of ethnicity. It thus has legitimacy which transcends mankind's sordid history of warring factions, power-hungry despots and ethnic hatred. By this yardstick, it's clear that Israel's government is not only legitimate but the ONLY legitimate candidate in the region. The fact that there are 10 Arab representatives in the Knesset demonstrates that Israel's government is democratic, secular, and tolerant. On the other hand, none of the Palestinian groups that aspire to govern the region (and push Israel's democratic government into the sea in the process) have ANY such claim to legitimacy. All are controlled by brutal terrorists, and none are democratic. Nor is there any indication that they ever will be. Rather, if they took over, they would either rule as despots or impose religious rule according to the barbaric and inhumane regime known as "Sharia." So hateful are these terrorists of the Israeli democracy that they very recently sent assassins to brutally murder an Israeli legislator who committed the unpardonable offense of representing his people in a democratic government. In short, they deserve no respect and certainly not to rule. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20011023174746.0435fa80>